Still Relevant

By: Jonathan Seidel

Existentialism and absurdism: Dostoevsky’s Ecclesiastes and Camus’s Jeremiah 

Existentialism focused on the human experience of man. Penetrating the trials and tribulations of life. Existentialism was a modern movement but an ancient idea. An idea blatant in the struggles of the ancients. The sorrow and pain of the heroes of old. Negligible in historical outlines but prominent in narrational exploits. A plot line educating of the challenging obstacles in life.

Kierkegaard is renown as the father of existentialism. The brush of religiosity and modernity. Subjective truth and humility. A leap of faith into the unknown. The world is perplexing but it can be redeemed by driving one’s self into the elation of the absurd. Kierkegaard accepted human fate. Suffering was inevitable. Yet once this is accepted what then? He provided faith as the remedy to the distraught existence. Life is peril without faith in God. Without the leap to the eternal. Leaving the forest of the materiality. It is this leap that is comforting. God reciprocates and the leaper is salvaged. Filled with the love of God he can move forward with his shining armour. He is protected and preserved. The leap is into the unknown but is rewarded with empowerment and love.

Kierkegaard’s religious existentialism was followed by other writers such as the novelist Dostoevsky. The latter’s use of fiction to propagate his theory of amorality and insanity prevailed in the imperial decline era. The needless suffering and perpetuated angst plagues the protagonists throughout the story. A painful struggle persisting as the plot thickens. A tale of disaster and nothingness. Meaning is nearly irrelevant in the grief stricken reality. Yet like Kierkegaard, God comes to aid. Faith is the salvation from the hellhole of nihilistic incarnation. Mental suffering alleviated by the spiritual aura engulfing them in serenity. Joy is achieved through Christian faith. The insufferable protagonist is non-believer and therefore is haunted by the ghosts of the pagans. The nihilistic woes swallow him into oblivion. It is the preexisting faithful option that stretches out to solve the dually destructive course. It is only with the leap to faith that salvation is imminent and possible. 

Camus took the opposite approach though born a Jew was agnostic throughout his life. Plagued by illness he voided the religious concerns for a philosophical model. He coined the absurdist philosophy. While both he and Dostoevsky’s characters had amoral tendencies their results were often divergent. Camus did not seek to save his protagonist through theology but mythology. While not explicit in his novel, Camus hints to Sisyphus in the rebellion against nothingness. Camus’ hero end is to rebel against suicide. There is no leap there is just living. There is just pushing forward. It isn’t about finding purpose beyond it is about dealing with no meaning. Finding meaning in no meaning. Formulating one’s own purpose amidst urgent nothingness. Death is the end suicide is ending too early. There is a reason to live if it is just to keep existing. Just as Sisyphus kept pushing that boulder so do you. For the sake of doing so. It is endless loop of tiresome routine but it is life while humming a song.

Existentialism is an old phenomenon tracing its lineage to the ancients. Finding two Jewish antecedents in Kohelet  and Jeremiah. Kohelet took the Kierkegaard-Dostoevsky route and Jeremiah the Camus route. This is not to say that Jeremiah was agnostic but his approach was more in his personal suffering and pushing forward than seeking meaning in religiosity as Kohelet did. The existential drift is not seminal to the biblical canon but is frequent in the prophetic books. The canon makes note of protagonist emotion but the later poetic prophetic books square the suffering more subjectively and poignantly. The terminology is strong and cuts deep. It is not a measure of an event happening but its effect on the character.     The first-hand experience of characters is explored in a number of examples including Job. Barret even deduced the biblical typology as the origin of existentialist concepts in his history of existentialist thought. It is these narratives that paved for greco-roman influences to complete the dual inspiration of modern existentialism. 

While Job certainly plays into the man of faith in an absurd world, the situation surrounding Job is tremendously troublesome. Giving the satanic curiosity and divine testing. Job’s struggles are second to God’s acts. The book is filled with poetic dialogue about human existence. The test of Job is dealing with theodicy not nothingness. It is the religious man’s gambit with the suffering endured. How could God do this? While Kohelet’s message is what is there for me to do? Jeremiah’s instinct is why ought I to do this? Separate issues and separate approaches to those issues. Job is critical part of wisdom literature and existentialist philosophy but it is different from the modern themes as the interventionist deity has drifted away. The absurdist quality is unique in dealing with the chaotic world where the divine word is supreme even if unknowable. God is the source of existence and thus praiseworthy no matter the consequences. This absurdism plays little part in either of the modern writers as they were trying to regain the spiritual not cope with the metaphysical nature of devilish ramifications. 

Job deserves his own existentialist play as an absurdist 2.0 but in matching up its is most identifiable with Kohelet and Jeremiah. Kohelet is a wealthy capitalist with all the possessions in the world. He has achieved everything. What more is there to do? What other purpose exists? He has become disenchanted with his materiality. Turning his cheek to the cycle of life and aroused by the natural routine and how he fits into it. Yet it is this cycle that bemoans any purpose if the end is nigh. If everything follows a pattern where is the unique aspect? Where is the meaning underlying the bland stages? Kohelet in Kierkegaardian fashion finds God to be that answer. The world is absurd like Dostoevsky and he therefore finds God as a suitable solution to his dramatised life. His empty existence is empowered by faith in God. Just as modern man he has learned all. He has reached the edge of finitude. Yet he finds it lacklustre. It is the acceptance of God that emboldens his perspective. The life cycle will forever persist but with divine lacing it becomes not only more bearable but worthwhile. 

Kohelet takes it a step further than both of the christian existentialists. While they approach the model with faith as the solution, Kohelet seeks commandments. For Kohelet faith is not enough. Spiritual reciprocity or just the simple acknowledgement to God is insufficient. For Kohelet it isn’t ethics that he seeks but structure. What produces meaning is the routine of commandments for God. For man is a servant to God and it is his duty to obey. It is the commandments that serve as man’s daily compass. Kohelet’s vanity is usurped by a meaningful actions. The divine commandments rebrand the natural world. No longer is food just a substance but a blessing to God. His worldview is not teleological. It is now with direction. Kohelet is a perfect alternative to the consumerist ideology of today. Listen to the wise king who had everything it isn’t worth it. Serving God is worth it. In an absurdist world filling it with divine meaning overpowers the nihilistic consequences of intellectual excess. 

Jeremiah is a prophet who like other prophets would rather not be picked. He agonises over his role reaping the consequences of the divine message. He is lonely an disturbed. Alienated from the public eye and polemicised for his outbursts. His divine messages are nothing but ridicule and apostasy. He is just a troublemaker. A danger to the social fabric. He must be isolated and jailed. He must be sidelined and silenced. Jeremiah was chastised and shoved around. He was broken with heartache. He cared for the people and for God. He was stuck in the middle of their spite toward one another. God’s wrath and the people’s denial. A precarious position for a prophet. A man forced into his position and then trying to reconcile the two but ultimately failing. He was only a mortal able to bring the divine news no matter how devastating it was. He was a messenger one with negative ideas educated to the public. Like Camus Jeremiah reckons with the insanity of his situation. He is in a bind and he ought to just continue forward.

Jeremiah is a restless character. He does lament and argue but he also does his job. While he is engulfed in a painstaking nightmare he does find some light along the shorelines. It isn’t all bleak. No matter the terror or torture there is still some good. He still sympathises with the people despite their actions. He still finds joy and laughter. He isn’t totally in the devil’s hell. He acknowledges the state of society and pushes to refine it. No global campaign but gradual steps. He was the prophet during the Josiah’s reign. The impending change to Israel’s destiny. Turning the tide for the better. Yet it is Josiah’s pride dismissing Jeremiah’s concerns and dying in battle unravelling everything they worked so hard to build. Yet Jeremiah does not give up. He continues to preach and preserve the people. Help change their ways throughout the unyielding attempts. He keeps pushing the boulder up the mountain no matter how many times his message falls on deaf ears. He is determined to keep going as that is his mission and purpose. 

Absurdism begins in the prophetic era dealing with existential crisis as they prevail in human mind. How to deal with a vain life. When you have everything but feel empty or when you have the words of change but no one listens. Each case desires a different outcome yet both are stooped in the absurdist layer. Caught in a difficult reality. Camus like Jeremiah was Jewish but unlike Jeremiah was not a religious man. He could’ve took the Kierkegaardian route but found faith a wrongheaded option. Jeremiah didn’t need faith since he already believed. He wasn’t searching for an answer to reach out purpose to keep moving forward. Jeremiah is Camus’ archetype. A man sullied by his sorrow. Demonised by the public and called upon by higher ups. Camus’ struggles should’ve looked to Jeremiah for support instead of Sisyphus. Even a secular Jew should’ve resorted to his biblical heritage over the mythological tale. Sisyphus is cursed to continue rolling a boulder up a mountain, a continued routine while Jeremiah is forced to continue the routine with nuance. It is a conceptual curse with varied details while Sisyphus is doing the same thing day in and day out. There is no change nor growth. 

Camus’ remedy is a figure who struggled mightily but found purpose in the nuances. In maximising his potential. Jeremiah did just that. Sorrow followed him. While Jeremiah did not possess a medical injury plaguing his life as Camus did, his prophetic position made life all that much more difficult. Not only on a social level but emotionally as well. The prophetic experience was not rainbows and unicorns but intense and overwhelming. God overcame him and “attacked” him with the messages. Decoding riddles to understand the complexity of the divine message. Then he had to relay the messages to the people who reciprocated terrifyingly. Angry at his deplorable narcissism. Camus’ Jeremiah would complement his struggles. Alienated and isolated in the real world. Able to change but yet still suffering. Trying to alter mechanics insufficiently. The ability to change just a little would go a far way. The absurdity permits autonomy. It is the sufferer who finds his purpose through his reflection of the world. 

If Camus’ hero is Jeremiah then Kierkegaard’s and Dostoevsky ought to be Kohelet. Kierkegaard famously noted Abraham as the knight of faith. Yet if he was looking for a leap of faith Kohelet is his guy. Though maybe if Kierkegaard was a little more bougie he would find Kohelet more entertaining. A may have been his danish heritage yet had he been a post-WWI American he we would find a more fitting character. Kierkegaard’s Abraham is a man of faith who maintains his faith despite the harsh command from God. Hold onto your faith as humanity enters the gates of modernity. This is the exact opposite of a leap of faith. Leap of faith is transitioning from nothing to something not holding onto something. The leap isn’t necessary if one already believes. To some extent it is holding onto it even a different realm but it makes more sense if it is a call to those who uncertain to take a chance. For the uncertain to make certain. Kohelet is the uncertain or even the rejecter who finds peace with faith and command. It is the leap of faith not modern technology that will save the human soul. 

Ironically it is the biblical heroes who provide a better solution than the philosophers who ought to have resembled them more. Each plays to a different part of the absurdist debacle of life. Kohelet speaks to the consumerist market. Society is entrenched in materialism. What better way to liberate than choose God and commandments that reduce the devotion to the idolatry of the market. The cathartic nexus and legal structure preserves a new purpose away from engaging in the cesspool of appearance prioritisation. Having all the money in the world or knowledge. Being the best to be the best because if you ain’t first you’re last. The motto of purchasing endlessly stops when a new concept takes precedence. Though Jews do purchase a bunch and books are in endless supply, the goal of the halakhic structure is of a unique paradigm that resorts to self service over self indulgence. Of inner growth over outer concerns. A framework that seeks peace through reflection and intention. New values that divert from the imploding fantastic urges. 

Jeremiah on the other hand responds to the outsiders. Everyone tries to fit in. It isn’t only in the consumerist materialism but on the playground. Compromising oneself for the sake of others. Disobeying parents lest others tease. The Jeremiah’s kiss their grandmothers in public. They say what is on their mind and follow their ideas through even if others attack them. The persist on despite the animosity and the isolation. Maimonides wrote his Guide even if people were unhappy with his decision. To be a maverick surrounded by criticism. Trying to help others even as they push you back. The Jeremiah way is to be caught in between two different parties or extremes. Each side vying for respect and allegiance. Whether it is a friend’s request or a political opinion. It is staying true to yourself. Continuing to grow through the burdensome experience of others agonising over your insistent divergency. An outcast a conspiracy nut a hermit and of course a weirdo. Ad hominids are only form of artillery. 

Both stories play a role in religious thinking but they are also important to all areas of life. Do not let others change you and find a hobby that embodies your spirit. Live to your liking and persist on. The world is chaotic but it is a little more bearable when destiny is chosen. When the response is active.